October 24, 2006

ADDED: I've been reading old blog posts -- reminiscing?? -- and I happened to run across what I think is my first post about Howard Dean. Writing the morning after his famous scream, I was entirely sympathetic to him.

93 comments:

Were have they been hiding this guy? He’s the leader of the Democratic Party, and in a midterm he should be (traditionally has been) the leading voice for his party. But they got him locked away somewhere as an ugly far left step-cousin.

The Barack O’Bama hoopla (I believe) is more then just random hype for 08, or a book selling venture. It’s a calculated effort to highlight the Democrats most moderate/attractive Clintonesque images before the Midterms.

I don't detect any dissimulation at all. Dean is not the best speaker and had a minor stumble pronouncing the word "gladiatorial" but so what? Not all Republican leaders are the eloquent speakers either ;) Where's the dissimulation here?

And Dean's substantive point is a very valid one; it's next to impossible to have a meaningful debate within the constraints of a talk-show; it usually becomes infotainment, just like Dean said.

It's obvious. I've seen Mehlman on talk shows and he's very good. poised and articulate. We've seen Dean. Dean may be an idiot about some things, but in this he's smart enough to know he'd come off a distant second, hence the reticence for a contest.

Mehlman has been an excellent party leader. Competent, but not trying to steal the show from his candidates. The Dean act has been primarily about Dean. Same with Bill's best buddy, Terry McAuliffe. Both their ego's get in the way of doing their jobs.

Because I'd rather answer softball questions from friendly media than actually debate and, you know, answer objections and stuff. This way I can talk about "policy" without actually explaining or defending it. You just go on pretending to "interview" me and I'll pretend to "answer" your "questions." None of us wants another Matthews/Clinton thing, do we?

Debates between preening and posturing opposing candidates, as in the so-called presidential "debates," may be "gladiatorial" and "infotainment," but I'm not so sure that would be the case of debates between party chairs. Either way, Dean would appear with Mehlman post haste if he thought that he would be perceived winning the contest and that the Democrat cause would be thereby helped. Obviously he doesn't think that would be the perception.

I for one would like to see Mehlman and Dean in gladiatorial combat, it'd be even better than celebrity boxing.

I agree Dean has a valid point (that talk show politics often degenerate into infotainment), where I disagree with him is the implication politicians pontificating side by side is somehow worse than their doing it individually. Besides, he is the guy the DNC has chosen to be out in front, not hiding from debate.

I'd be more amenable to Dean's criticism of the "infotainment" media (ugh, put that term in the annoying-and-overused file with "information superhighway") if he wasn't consistently spouting ridiculous and inflammatory soundbites crafted precisely for it.

If there's one thing Howard Dean can't do, is try to act like he's "above" any sort of controversial discourse. He's the first one to get down in the mud.

It's going to be so funny when the Dems kick the GOPs ass this year at the polls and all those "That Unhinged Howard Dean Is Going To Destroy The Democratic Party" clowns will have to eat a healthy helping of STFU.

"I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called."

"You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party."

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."

"I'm a metrosexual."

"We've gotten rid of (Saddam Hussein), and I suppose that's a good thing."

"This president is not interested in being a good president. He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father."

"You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."

"I think a library trustee is pretty important" during "an administration that likes book burning more than reading books."

"The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far—which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved—is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?"

"You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

Like "The Iraq War was a mistake", back in 2003? Inflammatory and prescient.

like:

1. I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.

2. I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.

3. This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good. (talking about the Dems and the GOP)

4. "I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called."

5. "You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party.''

6. "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."

7. "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

8. I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

and my fav: "I don’t know. There are many theories about (9/11). The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far—which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved—is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?

"It's going to be so funny when the Dems kick the GOPs ass this year at the polls and all those "That Unhinged Howard Dean Is Going To Destroy The Democratic Party" clowns will have to eat a healthy helping of STFU."

Blue texan, what will you do if they do not kick their asses. I personally think the Dems will pick up a few seats in both houses but fail to control either.

Remember 1994, polls said the houses would remain roughly the same, Republicans take over both. Remember 1996, polls said Dems will win, Reps win and pick up seats. Remember 1998, Polls said Dems win again because of the Impeachment, Reps still control both houses. Remember 2000, polls said Gore wins, Gore loses. Remember 2002, polls said Dems to pick up seats, Dems lost seats. Remember 2004, polls said Kerry wins easy, Bush wins.

Do you see a pattern here? The only poll that matters is the voting poll.

With Hillary and Obama as his only shields of perception at this time, I sure the hell wouldn't engage either. He knows too that polls are just polls at this time. Screaming and the Bush mantra is all he can offer at present - not enough to bring up against a smooth talker. His word fumbling? That wasn't too bad - Bush has done far worse.

Hmmm, dissimulation, probably. Guilty conscience, not so sure. I think he was stumbling for a reason, but I think he was stumbling because his brain was shouting "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING? NO WAY!" Not saying that was a difficult undertaking. In gladitorial contests, someone gets their butt kicked. And present day Democratic party adherents are not know for having a plan or ideas other than criticizing the neocons.

Debates are hard. You have to actually answer legitimate questions from the other side and convince people that your way is better. It's alot easier to just come on tv and answer question and repeat talking points. That probably is the smart move for him, but that doesn't mean he should be applauded for it.

I basically agree with Mark (and Doyle's first paragraph). Dean stumbled over the pronunciation of the word "gladiatorial" and didn't quite recover his composure before finishing the soundbite. I don't particularly like Dean, but I see no reason to suspend Hanlon's Razor.

Blue Texan said..."It's going to be so funny when the Dems kick the GOPs ass this year at the polls and all those 'That Unhinged Howard Dean Is Going To Destroy The Democratic Party' clowns will have to eat a healthy helping of STFU."

Even assuming that James Stephenson is wrong, and that you're right that the election will turn the south wing of the capital into an abattoir, it is a stretch to credit that result to Howard Dean's management. If it happens, it will have far more to do with the reasons identified here than any positive moves by Dean, and indeed, the Democrats have done everything possible to blow what should have been an overwhelming victory.

(For what it's worth, though, I think James is wrong - while I don't dispute his reasoning, I'm battening down the hatches in preparation of losing thirty seats.)

Blue Texan said..."It's going to be so funny when the Dems kick the GOPs ass this year at the polls and all those 'That Unhinged Howard Dean Is Going To Destroy The Democratic Party' clowns will have to eat a healthy helping of STFU."

Even assuming that James Stephenson is wrong, and that you're right that the election will turn the south wing of the capital into an abattoir, it is a stretch to credit that result to Howard Dean's management. If it happens, it will have far more to do with the reasons identified here than any positive moves by Dean, and indeed, the Democrats have done everything possible to blow what should have been an overwhelming victory.

(For what it's worth, though, I think James is wrong - while I don't dispute his reasoning, I'm battening down the hatches in preparation of losing thirty seats.)

The 50 state strategy is responsible for there being legitimate Democratic campaigns in districts that were recently seen as lost causes. One of them was Mark Foley’s district, and more get added to the list each week. It also allows for the possibility of not just winning, but running up the score, where the “upside” to the Emanuel/Schumer strategy would be mostly larger margins in fewer districts.

How have the Democrats “done everything possible to blow [it]” anyway? An overwhelming victory has become more likely in the past few weeks, not less. The Senate may stay Republican, but kiss the House goodbye.

Drill SGT anticipated the point I was about to make. There are indeed Punch & Judy-styled "opinion" shows (such as the now-canceled "Crossfire" and others that I'm sure are currently in production) where opponents are encouraged to scuffle. Yet there are comparatively intelligent ones, such as "Meet The Press," where debaters are expected to behave themselves as they make their points. Lumping them all together suggests that he's happier not debating anyone, ever.

Blue Texan commented: "It's going to be so funny when the Dems kick the GOPs ass this year at the polls and all those 'That Unhinged Howard Dean Is Going To Destroy The Democratic Party' clowns will have to eat a healthy helping of STFU."

Hmmm . . . possibly. (Actually, as a high-school senior, I applied to STFU, but got wait-listed, but that's another story.) Considering the current anti-GOP trend, it may be hard for Dems not to pick up some seats this fall, but it will certainly be despite Howard Dean's efforts rather than because of them. The man has quite simply been a poor party chairman.

His job, as I see it, is to a) raise money for his party -- an endeavor at which he's underperformed, to put it gently; and b) present his party as the logical and sensible choice for the average American. This has been hard for him to do, as he seems to share the majority of Good White Liberals' basic distaste for the American people.

knoxgirl said: "I'd be more amenable to Dean's criticism of the "infotainment" media . . . if he wasn't consistently spouting ridiculous and inflammatory soundbites crafted precisely for it." But he's a bit of an underperformer in that area, too. Revisiting my favorite Dean gaffe as listed above by Pastor Jeff: ". . . Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."

My God. How delusional and/or self-destructive could Dean be? The people who voted Bush into office, twice, are the honest working people of this country, the ones the Democrats used to represent before they became dominated by sneering elites who every Sunday thank their lucky stars that there's a Frank Rich to speak for them. And Dean himself -- who grew up wealthy on Park Avenue and in the Hamptons and went on to become Governor of wealthy, lily-white Vermont -- may be considered an "imperfect messenger" for that particular sentiment.

During the '04 election, when I first became acquainted with Howard Dean, I felt (as I still do), that if the people in the South, Midwest and West wanted to create a snide, fast-talking, condescending Yankee know-it-all who wanted nothing more than to tell those toothless, slack-jawed bumpkins in flyover country what's what -- he'd look and sound pretty much like Howard Dean.

Maybe the next time Ken Mehlman makes a TV appearance, Dean could storm the studio, wave a pro-Democrat banner, chant slogans and defend his behavior by claiming that letting Mehlman air such opposing viewpoints should be severely curtailed, as it creates an atmosphere hostile to his ideological well-being. (Well, it seemed to work at Columbia -- the college I actually attended, instead of STFU.)

Regarding Dean's desire to control the message, here is a good example. When he appears on Hannity and Colmes, Dean never allows Hannity to ask a question or even appear in the interview- the segment is always just Dean & Colmes.

a) He has raised a lot of money for his party, I don’t have the numbers but the DNC/RNC fundraising gap has closed. He’s also spent a lot of money, and not given much to the DSCC or DCCC, which are both controversial but he does raise money.

b) Howard Dean is one of the few national Democrats who is unafraid of presenting the party as a distinct alternative to Republicans, not Republican-lite (which only Clinton had the charisma to sell). The problem with John Kerry was that he didn’t present a clear enough choice to the average American. He tried to play by the Republican rules, pushing his military service and standing by his vote for the AUMF. In doing so, he sounded phony and unprincipled, which is worse than saying mean things about Republicans (oh the humanity!).

Maybe Howard Dean just likes gladiator movies and the idea of his and Ken slugging it out on the air. . . gave him the vapors.

Dean is a metrosexual you know--not that anything is wrong with that. Vermont is a metrosexual state (at least the flatlanders who moved there) and perhaps he will move to Seattle, which is now metronatural.

LOL Zeb. I was just addressing Mark W's concerns about Dean's fundraising ability and viability as a spokesman for the party. I'm not trying to draft him for '08 or anything. I just thinks he gets a raw deal for no good reason. Take this post for example.

Raw deal?Man, if Bush said anything this mangled, it'd be on continuous repeat at the YouTube JonStewart SNL CNN laugh fest.

What he meant to say was that he askeered of bein' on the teevees with anyone more literate than he. Did he actually graduate from med school? Where'd he go? Some off-shore skool in a former motel, or is this a certificate he got for sending in so many box tops?

Howard Dean is one of the few national Democrats who is unafraid of presenting the party as a distinct alternative to Republicans, not Republican-lite (which only Clinton had the charisma to sell). The problem with John Kerry was that he didn’t present a clear enough choice to the average American.

Doyle -

The mistake that you, Dean, and many other leftists make is that giving the voters a "clear choice" is not enough - the choice offered has to actually be better, not worse, than the Republicans, if they actually want to get votes.

This strategy didn't work in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. Why would it suddenly work now?

Doyle said..."[Dean has raised a lot of money for his party, I don’t have the numbers but the DNC/RNC fundraising gap has closed.

You might want to get the numbers to hand before asserting that. Even assuming that you're correct -- and that well-know conservative propaganda outlet the Washington Post says you're wrong -- you haven't established a prima facie case that Dean has succeeded because that closing of the gap could easily be explained by forces other than Dean at work within the Democratic Part, or even forces entirely external to the DNC, such as a drop in RNC fundraising, which would narrow the gap even if the DNC didn't change its fundraising a whit. At a very minimum, I'd think you'd need a graph showing DNC and RNC fundraising 1996-2006 to support your theory.

First, as I noted previously, if the gap has closed, that could be explained equally by a rise in DNC fundraising or by a fall in RNC fundraising. The WaPo story you link to admits the latter: "Of the three Republican committees, only the House committee collected more this year than in 2002" (which concedes by omission that the RNC and NRSC raised less this year than in '02) and "[t]he Republican total is about 10 percent lower than four years ago."

Second, the best support that article offers you is that "[o]ver the past 21 months, the Republican committees raised a total of $408.4 million, while the Democratic committees raised $313.3 million ... the Democratic total is 27 percent higher [than four years ago]." But that stands only for the proposition that DNC fundraising is up; it isn't freestanding support for the proposition that Howard Dean is responsible for the rise, and it barely even supports the premise that fundraising is "up" in relative terms (vs. absolute terms: are revenues genuinely "up" now, or were they "down" four years ago?).

And even the support that the WaPo gives you is far from unambiguous: according to the recent article you posted, "At the end of September ... [t]he [RNC] had $26 million available, three times the amount the [DNC] had." Yet, a year ago, "the [RNC] raised $81.5 million ... [and] [t]he [DNC], by contrast, showed $42 million raised." So a year ago, the RNC was raising funds three to one, and now it's raising them two to one.

His job, as I see it, is to a) raise money for his party -- an endeavor at which he's underperformed, to put it gently; and b) present his party as the logical and sensible choice for the average American. This has been hard for him to do, as he seems to share the majority of Good White Liberals' basic distaste for the American people.

No, his job is to 1) raise money, which he's objectively done better than his predecessor and his predecessor's predecessor and 2) win elections.

And if you think the GOP is speaking "logically and sensibly" to the "average American", you might want to check the polls.

Badger said... SimonThat article is a year old. Current WaPo article Democrats Approach Nov. 7 With a Surge in Fundraising.Nice try though ;)

LOL Badger, I actually read your link and found the material below that proves Simon's point, regardless of what the title was. The biggest thing I might deduce was that though Dem fund raising was increasing, donors were NOT giving to the DNC.

The Republican National Committee, however, continued to outpace the Democratic National Committee. In September, the RNC raised $13.1 million and reported total receipts of $14.3 million, while the DNC said it collected $5.6 million.

The GOP committees maintained an overall advantage of about $10 million in funds available to be spent. At the end of September, the Democratic committees had $67.3 million on hand; the Republican committees had $77.4 million.

Every party chair has their own style and emphasizes different parts of the job. Some chairs emphasize public speaking. Dean has focused his energies on rebuilding the party infrastructure, which he's done an admirable job of. His work to expand the Democratic party presence in all 50 states could have a huge payoff in the upcoming election.

He has not pushed himself as the party front-man. Sure, he has to do some of that, but that's not where his focus his. His focus is on the inside. I give him credit for knowing his strengths and weaknesses.

Mehlman is much more of a spokesperson. He's good at lying in public, which is very important for Republicans.

So both men are playing to their strengths. I give them credit for that.

According to the article you linked, the RNC raised $13.1 million and the DNC raised $5.6 million; furthermore, the RNC's available funds are three times that of the Democrats. So much for Dean's fundraising skill.

"It's going to be so funny when the Dems kick the GOPs ass this year at the polls and all those "That Unhinged Howard Dean Is Going To Destroy The Democratic Party" clowns will have to eat a healthy helping of STFU."

STFU? Are you trying to stifle dissent?

If the Democrats gain either House this midterm it will be, in the long tradition of American politics, not because of what they are and what they stand for, but because they aren't the other guys. A modern Democratic victory is never anything more than a referendum against the incompetence of the GOP. After a few weeks of moonbat gloating it will be fun to watch what happens when they realize: "Shit! We're running the show now. What the hell do we do?" It will be fun to have them to blame for everything. Nancy Pelosi might need another face stretching in order to keep smiling.

Boston70: You don't seem to notice that I made fun of Bush's speaking twice today.... so you're the one with skewed perceptions.

Has Mehlman misspoken recently? The fact is he's an excellent speaker, which is why I think Dean doesn't want to sit across the table from him. Does anyone know when the two last debated? How have matchups gone in the past?

It was not my contention that Dean is a super-hero, end-all fund raiser, but the numbers are quite good for an opposition party has consistently been lagging behind.

This is a second-term midterm election, which is traditionally very bad for the President's party. On top of that both the President and his party have atrocious approval ratings, there is widespread dissatisfaction with Republican policies, and the Republicans are afflicted by one scandal after another. And people would *still* much rather give money to Republicans than Democrats.

So I'm sorry, Badger, but those fundraising numbers are *horrible*. A competent Democratic leadership would be cleaning the Republicans' clocks in fundraising by now.

Make no mistake, the Republicans are going to lose. But it will be despite the incompetence of the Democratic Party's leadership. Hell, if it wasn't for the incompetence of the Democratic Party leadership they'd already have taken both the Presidency and at least one house of Congress two years ago.

Check what you know. How do you figure that I voted for Gore in 2000? I even voted for Feingold in 2004.

Not that it's any of my business - but as long as I've been here, you've never mentioned any Repubs you have voted for.

It's pretty easy to see by a stuttering Dean thread, what your objective is - why not just come out and state your where you're at? Many people wander in and out of parties, who cares? I'm a strong liberal, but I would never say there aren't many bright and honest conservatives with good ideas in America.

1. Dems don't have an agenda.2. Dems are out to destroy America with their agenda

Care to reconcile this for us?

Could you give an example of a person who holds both of those beliefs?

What I most commonly hear said (and what I personally believe) is that the Democrats have no agenda *beyond* being anti-Bush and anti-Republican, and that that is what is bad for America. They'll end up winning office with no plan and no mandate for action.

Ann, you were entirely sympathetic to him for having humililated himself in front of a national audience.

You were not, as you seem to be implying here, sympathetic to the point of not believing that he humililated himself, or that the scream had become overly famous.

The terms "camera oblivion" and "meltdown of historic proportion" just aren't entirely sympathetic.

In other news, I was wondering if that was spam. Excellent spam, though. I didn't know who Randy Kuhl was but now I know he has a drinking problem and threatened his wife with a shotgun. That's defining your opponent if I've ever seen it!